WordWolf

It's been decades, and people defending vpw can still spring a few surprises. You're DECADES LATE to the discussion. The trial began. The prosecutors laid out the charges. The witnesses were called forth. The defense called the women liars and insinuated they were sluts and whores. All sorts of defenses were offered of him. By all BIBLICAL standards, and by enough to secure a conviction in a US court of law, vpw was found guilty of molestation, rape, and all sorts of things. We've slowly assembled his biography, piece by piece, from vpw himself, from twi sources, from eyewitnesses (interviewed by a man who idolized vpw). Court was adjourned, everyone went home. The seasons changed. Years passed. Then he arrives and announces that the trial hasn't even begun. No, you missed EVERYTHING.

I think he was letting me know with who/what I was trying to reason. Knowing that is important, and adds important context to the discussion.

I've been going over his entire life story, as much as we have. twi told quite a bit, and vpw LOVED to talk about himself. so there's little lack of some things, if only from his perspective. When looking at the whole picture, I realized, relatively recently, that it makes a consistent picture. His childhood was one of irreverence with a lack of piety or even dedication. His adolescence was even moreso. His neighbors considered him a bully, a showoff, and a braggart. A number of them remember him riding his motorcycle around, pulling stunts, trying to get notice and adulation. We know that much because a man who virtually worships vpw, a man who said he was "overgifted", and that "when he walked, the earth shook", and so on, that man went around and questioned the neighbors. The only thing he ever did that even suggested ministry was him making a comment to a traveling preacher, and vpw himself made it sound like he was just 'fibbing' when he said it. Before he made the decision to begin ministry study, he himself told the Corps, many times, that he had considered business, music, and ministry, but eventually decided on ministry. twi's own accounts, from vpw's mouth, mention that his decision was met with disbelief. His own father said that he hadn't even learned to work hard on the farm, and suggested ministry was harder. His neighbors were in disbelief as well. (Same source as before.) We know that his areas of study were the lightest he could find. No "history" or "languages". His academic focus was "homiletics", or "how to write and deliver a sermon." We also know that he cut corners, reusing his Master's Thesis for his Doctorate Thesis, a big no-no. We suspect he plagiarized a lot, but we can't prove much of that without his records or people who caught him doing it in school. we do know that he worked as an editor and proofreader for a magazine where preachers wrote articles. That provides the opportunity to plagiarize and not get caught- but isn't proof he did. We know his Doctorate was acquired at a degree mill, and the place was unaccredited. In the words of Al Franken, "They have as much authority to issue a Doctorate as Schlotski's Deli!" vpw himself spoke a lot about his first year or so of pastoring. He said he considered giving up twice early on, once per year, for the first two years. He also complained that giving weekly sermons at his first posting made him actually go to the Bible each week and write a sermon. Never a word about the lives of the people, never a word about the responsibility, just complaints he had to do the work. So far, I can't find any piety, any godly dedication. That's a man who's working for his paycheck, and trying to do the least amount of work for the most amount of paycheck. Then comes 1942. Much later, vpw spread a claim that we've referred to as "the 1942 Promise." Supposedly, God Almighty told vpw that He (God Almighty) would teach him (victor paul wierwille) God's Word like it hadn't been known since the 1st century, if he (vpw) would teach it to others. This was a lie, a fabrication, from when he first began to tell it (over a decade after it happened, he said nothing when it allegedly happened, not even to his own wife. We've discussed this alleged promise in detail, and it's beyond any REASONABLE doubt that this was a lie, and not a very convincing one. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24980-concerning-the-failure-of-the-1942-promise/ Still can't find the piety. A possible argument can be made after he spent time with Leonard and Stiles, in 1953. His brother claimed that he seemed more clean-cut after that, but from his birth through his education and his first DECADE as a minister, no evidence he had even an AVERAGE level of piety for a parishioner, let alone a minister. But how "godly" was he even in 1953? That was when he plagiarized Leonard's class and Stiles' book, and told everyone "I did this, this is my work." So, I don't think a strong argument can be made that he got right with God. That's decades in, and I still can't find godliness. In the 60s, he continued with incremental gains by hawking Leonard's class and Stiles' book, and modifying them by adding stuff from Bullinger. At the end of the 60s, vpw went to impress the hippies and recruit them. He seemed to appreciate the "free love" aspect of the hippies, and didn't like that the Christian ones weren't into that. He was unable to get anywhere with trying to suggest orgies were cool with God Almighty, and he seemed to drop the subject after it went over like a lead zeppelin. In the 70s, we have everything I mentioned in a previous post. It takes a lot of work to set up an excellent operation to molest people, and vpw set up a VERY successful one. We also have more direct eyewitness accounts more often, so at this point, we start to hear about his OTHER vices. vpw was a chain-smoker and an alcoholic. The man drank so much that when he visited a location for a weekend, a local was tasked with getting him bottleS (plural, for the weekend) of Drambuie. We know he drank Drambuie. How many of you know what your casual acquaintances drink? I've known one poster here face to face for years. I think we could probably say of each other. Of the rest of the board, no idea. (Oh, one ex-poster who made his own moonshine, I'm fairly confident he drank that, but that's a very special case.) He smoked cigars and Kool shorties. Again, we know what brand and type of cigarette he smoked. (IIRC, people were sent to get his smokes when he traveled, also, but I'm not 100% sure of that.) As for the 80s, that's when the man died of cancer. The man drank for decades, weakening his liver. The man smoked cigars and cigarettes for decades, exposing himself to carcinogens for decades. The man died of cancer. Allegedly, the reason he got the cancer was that he was exposed to bright studio lights for 2 weeks while filming pfal decades before. Some people still believe that. Studio lights do NOT cause cancer. On Broadway in NYC, on the West End in London, and so on, every night there are live shows with bright studio lights, not counting the matinee. Performers work looking into those lights for months or years at a time, some of them going directly to another show for months. So far, no outcry that they're dropping like flies because they're all getting cancer from bright studio lights. So, which is more consistent with the man, when we look at ALL the man, and not just the image he portrayed? Is it consistent that this man was indeed dedicated to God at some point, then gave up? we can't find any time of significant piety. Is it consistent that this man took ministry as a job, and worked as a performer, an actor, and faked it all, plagiarizing all the substance? The evidence matches. We can trace all of his successes to whom he plagiarized. The only thing left is the obvious objection "Well, if he was a fake all the time, what about when he manifested?" All of that could be faked, and it looks like it was faked. If you want to get into "Is it possible or impossible to fake the manifestations", then a new thread in Doctrinal would be where to have that discussion.

"I don't believe that for a second." Not "you'll have to provide a lot more specific information if you'd expect me to agree," but you've already drawn a conclusion. "This is how I know you go beyond legitimate criticism to cynicism." So, "legitimate criticism" is when you believe it, and "cynicism" is when you don't? Either you didn't mean what you said, or you have a standard of distinguishing which is which that is subjective and unsound. " I'll listen to legitimate criticism, like saying he was a serial adulterer, but he was a mixed bag at a minimum." So, it's not the evidence, the eyewitness accounts, the direct quotes from him, or other things that determine where you draw the line, but rather what you believe? Well, that's honest to admit, I'll give you that. A lot of people COULD say the same, but wouldn't admit it. "I was a college atheist when I took PFAL. I believed the Bible and have been growing in it ever since. I've got VP Wierwille to thank for that." So, you know he was genuine because you benefited and got God in your life. That doesn't necessarily follow. Him being genuine or false and you getting God in your life are actually not automatically connected. That is, I'll stipulate to your benefit. I'll stipulate you got godly after being exposed to twi, pfal and so on. I would even go so far as to say I could say the same of myself. (How's that for cynicism?) That having been said, there's a lot more to the story than "He was godly, so I benefited." You heard some things that seemed godly. A fake could easily plagiarize the work of legit Christians. A fake could easily reproduce their work, their sermons, and so on. A fake could easily deliver a sermon. A good fake could produce a sermon with an impassioned plea that brings tears to his eyes- and might do so to you. So, a successful fake COULD do everything we saw vpw do. We also know that the House of Acts Christians, the hijacked hippies, those were legit Christians who were making a stir- which is why vpw heard of them from several states away. We know the people THEY taught, the people THEY prayed for, they got love and deliverance. And they taught some people, and so on. So, then, if a fake and a real preacher could both produce the same results as vpw- either through sincere work and dedication to God or through dedication to maintaining a cushy living and the means to keep it- how do we tell the difference? We look at the man himself. When we look at them when the cameras are on, we will probably see the same thing- a display of piety and sincerity. (A SUCCESSFUL fake won't be so easy to catch.) It's when the cameras are off that we will find out what the men are like. Let's say a man dedicates his life to God. Is he going to "walk the walk" as well as "talk the talk"? The answer should be obvious. But in twi, even what filters down to the local level is oddly permissive. No injunctions to moral living, EVER. We heard about God's PERMISSIVENESS, though. How far does this go? vpw had been at it for over a decade when he went to meet the hippies to recruit them. When he spoke privately to J1m D00p, he had a conversation that made no sense to J1m. vpw questioned him repeatedly about what it was like TO ATTEND AN ORGY. He told JD, speaking of ORGIES, that "THAT'S ALL AVAILABLE." His justification for that at the time was to tell him that I Corinthians 8:1 uses the word "GOOD" instead of "BEST" and so therefore, Christians could ATTEND ORGIES. JD was shocked, said he thanked God he was not in any of that, and changed the subject. Now, George Carlin once pointed out that a sin can have steps- that is, not be an impulse of an instant. "It was a sin for you to WANT to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to PLAN to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to FIGURE OUT A PLACE to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to TRY to feel her up, and it was a sin to feel her up! There were 6 sins in one feel, man!" All joking (and comedians) aside, he had a point. That sin involved PREMEDITATION AND PLANNING. He felt an impulse to sin. Rather than "flee fornication", he made occasion-and opportunity- for the sin. He worked out a location, made a plan, and put the plan into action. At this point, I'm pretty confident you'll just hand-wave it away, since it isn't what you think. However, when it came to the Way Corps, vpw had worked out a FEW places he could molest or rape women. GOING FROM THE REPORTS OF THE WOMEN WHO CAME FORWARD, I know of at least 2 that he used- his private bus, and his private office. He kept alcohol in both. OK, keeping alcohol in either is proof of nothing- although it suggests a possible drinking problem. But, by itself, proof of nothing. All Corps candidates were required to write an autobiography when applying, "From Birth to the Corps." In it, some of them mentioned they had a history where they survived sexual abuse. Now, survivors of sexual abuse are often easier to abuse later because of their previous conditioning and experiences. This, also, is proof of nothing when by itself. Now, consider the scenario. This was repeated in testimony after testimony of women who came forth, women who came here, and were called liars, were yelled at, were shouted down, were called whores by vpw fans, and who STILL came forward. The Corps was on the farm, in the middle of nowhere. The only people for miles were the people in the program and the staffers of twi. Women were there. Occasionally, a woman whose Corps paper said they'd survived rape was called privately to a private audience with vpw, either on the bus, or in the office. They attended. vpw greeted them- AND HAD THEIR AUTOBIOGRAPHY IN HIS HAND. He offered them a drink, and engaged in small talk for some time. Then his speech focused on their personal history. He offered to help heal them of their previous trauma. He was going to do that by showing them sexual contact with him, which was going to erase the trauma or overwrite it. "I'll show you what's good about being a woman." (And so on.) Some women were too shocked to react quickly, a few ran. A number mentioned falling unconscious. No, that's not a woman swooning, that's a woman who accepted a drink that turned out to be drugged, and passed out when the drug took affect. When they woke up, some woke up with vpw doing things to them. What happens next? Each woman leaves his presence. IMMEDIATELY, one of a handful of twi insiders appears and talks to them. The woman is subjected to an indoctrination about what a blessing that was, how they should feel good about it, and so on. The insider also observed their reactions. Women who looked like they might tell someone were rushed off of grounds before they could talk. A pretext for kicking them out of the Corps was constructed and presented. They were made to feel like trash, then put on a slow Greyhound bus home. As soon as they left but before they got home, the locals where they lived were phoned and given an earful about all the problems of this woman- most of them manufactured completely. If she told anyone when she got home, she was disbelieved- EVEN BY HER OWN FAMILY. LOTS of women came forth. According to the Bible, a multitude of witnesses whose accounts agree should be believed. I don't know what you're going to do. What it sounds like is that vpw made lengthy arrangements for the Corps where he was able to sort through the candidates and find women he was likely to be able to rape or molest successfully. Then he made lengthy arrangements for places where he was likely to be successful to rape or molest them- privacy, and so on. Then he made lengthy arrangements to have specific women isolated and brought to him- with no witnesses- and for one of a small handful of people to try to keep her from telling on him, and spying to make sure she wasn't going to talk. Then, those who looked likely to talk were kicked out, demeaned, and their reputations were savaged to keep anyone else from believing them. After all, vpw was The Man of God For Our Day and Time. Who would believe such things of him? That "one" woman must be lying for some reason.

I remember some lines a lot better than others from that movie.

I think- I may be misinformed- that the modern Christian Ecumenical movement started up after World War I and picked up steam here and there since then. I've met with Christians of different groups down the years, and some of them were just fine interacting and working together. That's been true in at least 2 countries as far as my personal experience goes. (I can't vouch for what I haven't personally experienced, but I would be highly skeptical if someone claimed I found the only Christians in both countries that are cool to work together.)

It was taught in twi- and in NYC in twi when both you and I were in- that if someone was an ordained minister, and later resigned, they forfeited all their rewards from God. No explanation nor verses were mentioned with this, of course. As far as twi is concerned, you leave twi, and God will take away everything, period. That may include your life, and those of your loved ones! As you pointed out, twi's answer if you left and prospered, was that the devil was causing you to prosper, since they already said God wasn't going to do it. As I see it, twi has been out of God's operations, and has been made to prosper by the devil- when they prospered.

"...it's not even a sin to eat meat on Fridays anymore..... but I bet there's still guys in hell on a meat rap! 'I thought it was retro-active! I ate a baloney sandwich. This guy had a beef jerky.' How'd you like to do Eternity for a beef jerky?"

To be bluntly honest, out of all the books carrying vpw's name, that one was so shoddy I would expect it to be the one most written by him, and least written by others. I think he may have used some basic reference books in the beginning, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, but that seemed to be it. JCOP and JCOPS were well-written- and were done by the research department. vpw came along later, added the intros, and put his name on the covers. The Studies in Abundant Living were basically typewritten sermons- transcripts of some teachings he did, later edited as well. Those read like sermons. (Some of their content was obviously plagiarized, also.) The Orange Book and the White Book had contents directly taken from Leonard, Stiles and Bullinger, mixed and matched a bit here and there. But JCING was almost a vanity project. (He left signed copies at church doors once.)

What's the difference between sincerity and insincerity? Anyone should be able to tell you. Someone who is sincere means what they say, and someone who is insincere does not mean what they say. So, a man intentionally selling shoddy material, and knowing it is shoddy, can make an impassioned diatribe about how fine the products are- but he would not be SINCERE. He would be FAKING by making a FALSE DISPLAY resembling sincerity. vpw spoke a number of times on what sincerity was, including from the ROA main stage, where the microphones recorded him for posterity. He said that the man who tries to sell you a toothbrush with only one bristle on it has to be REALLY sincere. Why do I make a point of this? it's simple once you look at it. To vpw, for him to be "sincere" was a matter of THE APPEARANCE of sincerity, and NOT THE REALITY of sincerity, NO SUBSTANCE to his "sincerity." vpw carried on, in effect, as 2 people. When in private, he was a petty, venal, greedy man, an alcoholic, a plagiarist, a molester and a rapist. (And so on.) When he was in public, he stepped into character as if he was performing on stage. When the cameras were on, he was a humble servant of God, who cared only about what God cared about, and knew that a man should neither molest nor rape women. (It was IMPLIED in CFS.) That's why the real vpw made it mandatory for all pfal students to begin by studying the booklet on why they should tithe, and came up with "abundant sharing" and pushed that a lot, and why he was unique in all of Christendom and came up with "plurality giving", which was his term and concept- where you figure out exactly what you need for day-to-day living, and donate ALL THE REST OF YOUR MONEY to twi. No saving, no investing, no putting aside to buy newer or nicer things. vpw never "turned from" a humble, dedicated service to God because he never began on that path. He began by looking for a career with the least work and the most possible benefit that he could manage. From there, he used people and used up people, and found financial and temporal benefits in doing so- at their expense. Perhaps there will be a place for him in the special hell- where they send child molesters and people who talk in the theater.

Before you ever heard of him. It comes as a shock to a lot of people when they see many of the details that were kept out of the public eye. (It certainly was a shock to me, long ago!) According to vpw's own account, before he went into the ministry/church work, he considered a few different careers- business, entertainment, and ministry. He decided on ministry. (No, it wasn't a calling.) One of the more shocking things, for me, was right in "the Way- Living in Love." That was when vpw admitted that he had gone to divinity school, had been assigned a congregation, and had been giving weekly sermons FOR ABOUT A YEAR... BEFORE EVER BELIEVING THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD. Furthermore, in his first 2 years as a pastor, he TWICE considered just giving up. Ever hear how he spoke about OTHER people who thought about giving up? He said they weren't worthy to be Christians. It continues from there. He made decisions consistently purely on the financial sense. When he heard about BG Leonard's class, he contacted Leonard, who told him a class was already in progress, and to contact him after it ended. vpw immediately traveled to where he was teaching the class, and demanded to be allowed to join the current one. He retook it a few months later. Then vpw asked for permission to teach Leonard's class on "the Gifts of the Spirit" on a one-time basis, locally. Leonard agreed. A few months later, Leonard received a photo of the grads of "his" class, and was told it went well. The end. As for vpw, when he began the class, he told all the students it was his OWN class on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." After that, vpw continued to teach Leonard's class, calling it his own. He continued to change it, and called it PFAL. He added a lot of material from Bullinger, primarily from "How to Enjoy the Bible." vpw also took Stiles' book on "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" and repackaged it as the White Book, "Recieving the Holy Spirit Today." Later editions of the book include a changed introduction- with the change making it sound like it was all a book that was the result of vpw and God and nobody else's work- but the earlier editions mentioned an anonymous man vpw found eventually who could teach him this subject. That man was Stiles- who taught him face to face, and whose book vpw ripped off entirely. BTW, the reason the definitions of the manifestations sound so cumbersome is that vpw kept changing them to make them sound different from Leonard's, but never changed them to reflect a deeper understanding of them, or even a clearer explanation. The little group grew very slowly. When vpw heard about the House of Acts Christians, he rushed over there. He performed his full act, and managed to convince many of the kids there that himself was some great one. He took a new, vibrant movement of God's people and strangled it, diverting many of the early people into becoming the sales force for twi. Many of them taught new people, who taught other new people. This was an unintended consequence- they were just supposed to sell people on pfal and twig and tithing. Ever have a really blessed time at twi? That was the accidental result of those people teaching others, and those people teaching still others. WHEN THE CAMERAS WERE ON, vpw was a humble man who didn't care about his own name, and was entirely about God's Word. WHEN THE CAMERAS WERE OFF, it was either his way or the highway. He kicked out an entire year of the corps, then the next day allowed them to rejoin- if they'd swear allegiance to him personally. He considered twi his personal piggy bank, and its belonging as his own belongings. So, he never GOT ON The Word. What he "got on" was making a display of being about The Word.

The reason we're having trouble getting a bead on what twi teaches is that both of the posts above mine are correct. ON PAPER, twi acknowledges all Christians as saved, and part of the body of Christ. In practice, only twi was/is in "the household", and you have to jump through many hoops to maintain that, and your rewards and all sorts of things were/are attached to that. Any deficiency in complete lockstep with twi, and "God won't even spit in your direction." If you leave twi, and ANYTHING in your life is less than perfect, or anything bad happens, it's because you left God's Protection because you left The Household. You were warned your children could drop dead if you leave twi and stay out. Which of your children do you want to kill? No, I'm not exaggerating, those were all told to different posters here at different times.

This is a show that ran in syndication in the U.S. for a long time. In the U.K., it did the same, AFAIK. In the UK, it was a 1-hour show. In the US, they snipped each show in half to make 1/2 hour shows, which is how they always aired, AFAIK. It is next to impossible to find this show in syndication now. I strongly suspect that far too many people were offended by the show- or are predicted to be offended by the show, for it to run now. That's a little odd, because, on the whole, it wasn't a show that specifically went for "shocking" or "edgy." This show was a comedy- although it did include musical numbers. It occasionally spoofed something- like "Gone with the Wind," "Murder on the Orient Express," and "The 6 Million Dollar Man." In particular, I liked when they looked at alternate takes on "Little Bo Peep." One version was a TV detective story, with Bo Peep arriving with a report of the missing sheep, another was a Swedish movie where we only saw the parts that could be aired on TV, and they included a Shakepearean version as well. Although only the host's name was known by everyone, a few of the regular performers were known by name- because they often used their own names when performing skits.

I'll try the former. Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Slovenia, Macedonia.

I'm stumped. I doubt I've ever heard it.

Old time posters will find this funny, but I agree with Oldiesman. (At least I agree with this last post!) The meaning of "household" was never exactly defined, but in practice, seemed to equate with being a Christian at all- because any act of disobedience to twi would threaten to put you out of "the household". Further, people like lcm were openly distainful of people leaving twi, and said they put themselves outside of God's protection and so on. Any time something bad happened to someone who left twi, it was ALWAYS "because they left the household." (Any time something bad happened to someone in twi, either they were blamed for not being faithful ENOUGH to twi, or the devil was going after them BECAUSE they were in twi.) And lcm was quite vocal about how God's blessings won't reach someone who isn't in lockstep with twi. There was a lengthy list of things which would result in a situation where "God won't even SPIT in your direction", most notably, tithing. lcm talked about God spitting in our direction a lot.

I can't even name a single GROUP which will allow any questioning of their dogmas. I have met Christians willing to agree to disagree, and to interact despite differences. They've been from different denominations, for that matter. (Not twi, mind you...)

This is a show that ran in syndication in the U.S. for a long time. In the U.K., it did the same, AFAIK. In the UK, it was a 1-hour show. In the US, they snipped each show in half to make 1/2 hour shows, which is how they always aired, AFAIK. It is next to impossible to find this show in syndication now. I strongly suspect that far too many people were offended by the show- or are predicted to be offended by the show, for it to run now. That's a little odd, because, on the whole, it wasn't a show that specifically went for "shocking" or "edgy." This show was a comedy- although it did include musical numbers. It occasionally spoofed something- like "Gone with the Wind," "Murder on the Orient Express," and "The 6 Million Dollar Man."

I'm sure the name "Ernest Martin" won't ring a bell to a lot of people who only listen to twi's side of stories. His name is known at the GSC. Ernest Martin was the man who wrote the article and book upon which twi based "Jesus Christ- Our Promised Seed." His book was called "The Star That Astonished the World." The article preceded the book by several years, and was used by the research department-at vpw's direction- on which to base the book. Ever remember hearing his name in twi? Me, neither. A different thing which may be a surprise to some people-but not others- is that JCOPS says "by vpw" on it and inside it. It was written by people in the research department, and based largely on Martin's work- with some interpolation of Bullinger's work from "the Witness of the Stars". Once again, very little of that book was original, and even less was written by vpw- largely the introduction. This wouldn't surprise some people because, apparently, it's customary in certain circles for the person in charge of the group to write "edited by" and slap his name on the work of his team- no matter how much of it was his work- and mention the team briefly, and that's all right. I know it surprised me, at least. I expect the words "written by" to mean that this is the person who wrote a book. I acknowledge books that say something like "my life as told to" as different, and scholarly books like "Black Elk Speaks", which was compiled by a Professor, and was largely the words of Black Elk, an Indian chieftain (with notes where a different Indian was quoted, like "Iron Wasichu speaks" and so on.)

NYPD Blue????

OK, taking a stab at this.....here's my best guess. Elvis Presley James Brown Little Richard Buddy Holly Jan & Dean

It's interesting to note how fast pfal does a 180 when it comes to tithing. Christians are not under The Law, we are under Grace. All our rules come from Pentecost and afterwards...... except for tithing. The rules quoted are all from The Law, like in Malachi. One example is quoted that Abraham gave a donation- with nothing saying it was required or even expected. He chose to give it, and he gave it. That's not proof nor an argument for tithing. The only reference in the New Testament? II Corinthians 9:7. In the KJV, it reads: 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. (For the curious, the NASB reads "7 Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." ) vpw used this verse to say that we were required to give 10%- or more! to "God"- and both he and twi push for twi to be the sole source to receive all that money. He made no effort to distinguish it from the previous requirement- he called it "tithe"- same as before- which means "tenth." But even the verse he quotes says we don't have to tithe! If we are REQUIRED to give, the giving is "OF NECESSITY". ("Under compulsion.") twi keeps track of their members/"followers" and their tithes/money given under compulsion. Try giving less than 10% and see how long you go before someone starts giving you static. So, after Pentecost, no donations are REQUIRED. In Acts, there were donations requested at specific times for specific needs at that time. In twi, that's not the final word on the subject. Suppose you even give 10%. That's not enough. Now you have to "abundantly share." Those are donations above the MANDATORY 10%. The verses for this....no verses. "Well, under The Law, they gave 10%, we should do more!" Wait! In twi, that's STILL not the final word on the subject. Outside of vpw, twi, and possibly another group that got this from them, nobody has the sheer nerve to pull this one. "Plurality giving." In twi, that's a thing. It means you sit down, figure out how much you make, calculate how much you need to get by, and subtract that amount from the amount you made. Then you take EVERYTHING ELSE AND HAND IT OVER TO TWI! Everywhere else, you can take anything left and invest it, put it towards retirement, save it for emergencies, use it to buy something nice, etc. That's not recommended anywhere in the Bible. People wondering what difference it makes should learn some of the practical differences it makes. People in twi are NOT SUPPOSED to save for retirement, invest, etc. They're supposed to hand twi over all that money. So, when the person gets an emergency, does twi ever donate back a little of that money to compensate! No way! They'll pray for you, but the money is in their hands and not going back. In twi, you're supposed to distance yourself from family members who are not in twi..... UNTIL YOU NEED SOMETHING FROM THEM. THEN you go to them for help to cover for the absence of the money you handed over to twi! If you're in twi, you may HEAR that you're "under Grace", but in many ways, you are NOT treated that way, and that starts with handing over your money. Lots of people remember that "Christians Should Be Prosperous" (vpw's book that argues you're supposed to hand over 10%) was required with pfal. Most of us were given a homework assignment right at the beginning of the class, to read it. As soon as we got the book, we were required to read it. All the pfal material to cover- but the "give us your money" stuff jumped to the front of the queue.

Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" outlines Bullinger's explanation of that. A lot of that book was lifted and turned directly into content in the pfal foundational class. Sessions 9-12 were a mix of Bullinger's "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit", JE Stiles' "GIfts of the Holy Spirit" and Leonard's class. But a lot of 1-8 are Bullinger, and a lot of that was all HtEtB.

That's it.

In this thread and this forum, we're here to go over what twi teaches, and compare the doctrine and teaching which allegedly comes from the Bible, and see if it really is in accord with the Bible. Getting into what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is off-topic for both thread and forum. Oldies, if you really want to get into that, please start a thread in the relevant forum. Keep in mind, that, if you do, you might not like the thread that results. But you can if you want to.